Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 998: Defendant Prevailing Under Fees Clause Entitled To Unapportioned Fee Recovery, Another Plaintiff Not Entitled To Fees Given Failure To Show Fees Clause Was Part Of Contract, And Defendant Properly Denied

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 998

  Olio Of Fees/Costs Issues Confronted By 4/1 DCA In Unpublished Decision. About olio: Is there that o’re his French ragout Or olio that wad staw a sow, Or fricassee wad mak her spew Wi’ perfect scunner, Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view On sic a dinner?      — Robert Burns      Cosco Fire Protection, […]

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Prevailing Attorneys In Collection Suit Against Ex-Client Sustain $1.532M Fee Award And $123K Expert Witness Fee Award On Appeal When Attorneys Recovered Base Collection

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

  Fees Clause Was Broadly Worded, Former Attorneys Represented Client In Seven Suits, and Section 998 Rejection Gave Rise to Expert Witness Fee Award.      This next opinion, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan, Case No. A139863 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 19, 2015) (published), is must reading for both litigants and attorneys involved

Allocation/Section 1717: $740,257.50 1717 Fee Award Reversed Because Appellate Court Could Not Determine If Lower Court Actually Exercised Discretion To Apportion Award Between Compensable And Noncompensable Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Discretion Was Abused When There Was No Hearing And Only One Sentence Fee Award.      NICO Alloys v. American Metal Group, Case Nos. B251688/B253987 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 5, 2015) (unpublished) is an example of where a lower court and fee claimant need to do a little more to sustain a fee award

Allocation, Construction: Fee Award Under Public Contract Code Section 7107 Remanded For Redetermination

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: POOF!

  Appellate Court Ordered Apportionment to Limit Fee Award to Those Incurred Solely to the Section 7107 Claim, Meaning $3.85 Million Fee Recovery Went POOF! For Now.      In FTR International, Inc. v. Rio School Dist., Case No. B238618 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 27, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion published), school district and its

Allocation, Section 1717: James Fleming/Capistrano Unified School District Battle Comes To Roost–$123,233 Fees/$6,60.10 Costs Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Contractual Basis Was There, And No Apportionment Required Under the Facts.      The long-standing battle between Mr. Fleming and Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) has finally ended, we think, in Fleming v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., Case No. G048523 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 7, 2015) (unpublished). This concerned Mr. Fleming’s involvement

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: Vast Portion Of $2.1 Million Fee Award Under Unruh Act/Interrelated Tort Claims Affirmed On Appeal Where Total Recovery Was $1.654 Million

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  One Reversal Involved A Non-Class Action Percentage Of Recovery Methodology Found Flawed By The Appellate Court, So Apportionment Re-Do On One Issue Was Ordered.      Paletz v. Adaya, Case No. B247184 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 29, 2014) (unpublished) involved bad facts, resulting in a substantial jury verdict and substantial fees, most of which

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: $362,000 In Fee Recovery To Contractor Stepping Into Developers Shoes And Guarantors For Winning Against Construction Lender Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Bank’s Failure to Contest Fee Entitlement Meant Only Amount of Fees At Issue—With Reasonableness And Apportionment Issues Left to Trial Court Discretion.      California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti, Case No. E053187 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 9, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is a construction lender liability case with fairly draconian facts

Allocation/Multiplier/Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: $180,648 Contractual Fee Recovery Affirmed In Case Where Plaintiffs Recovered Total Contract/Tort Underlying Award Of $109,000

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party

  $425,000 Fee Request Plus 1.5 Multiplier Nixed on Appeal.      In Holquin v. Dish Network LLC, Case No. D059983 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 22, 2014) (published), plaintiffs won a combined economic/noneconomic verdict against DISH Network and others in a satellite T.V. dispute. However, the rub was an attorney’s fees clause in the Residential

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: $1.6 Million Fee Award Against Nonsignatory Losing Plaintiffs Based On Lease Fee Clause Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Allocation, Nonsignatory, and Unsuccessful Work Arguments Rejected.      In Cal-Murphy, LLC v. Hines Interests Limited Partnership, Case Nos. A137609/A139772 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), non-prevailing parties appealed some adverse fee rulings, which aggregated about $1.6 million. With a very slight modification, the orders were sustained on appeal.      Non-prevailing plaintiffs were

Allocation/Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: $73,160 Fee And $3,029.40 Costs Award Against Losing Civil Rights Plaintiff In Favor Of L.A. County Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  30% Reduction of Fee and Costs Request Deemed Reasonable.      In Villafana v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B246866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2014) (unpublished), civil rights plaintiff bringing FEHA/federal civil rights/California Family Rights Act/public policy violation claims lost a summary judgment to L.A. County based on the statute of limitations

Scroll to Top